Carried out as a course project at Purdue University. It may or may not resemble the actual scenario.

1. CE-561
Illiana Corridor:
Feasibility Study
Team

2. CE-561
Illiana Corridor:
Feasibility Study
d ez
n an h an iya dr
i
an Li
ng H er rad da
r Sa
Zh ng
a i n a
h
Z ve ra tP am m an gy
o i j ee S h ai n yu i n
hib k R ya i sh o ia M
Z ri c S at sh if M X
E A Ar
Team

3. Team

4. I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65
Team

5. I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65
Proposed Illiana Corridor (30 miles)
Team

6. Overview
•Introduction
•Performance Measures
•Demand Estimation
•Construction & maintenance costs
•Travel time, Safety and VOC savings
•Economic efficiency/Development
•Energy Impacts
•Visual and Land use impact
•Social and cultural impact
•Noise/Air/Wetland Impact
•Water resource impact
•Multiple Criteria Evaluation
3 Team

7. Performance Measures
1.Average)Travel)Time
Travel'Time 2.Average)Speed
Level'of'Service(LOS) Average)Traffic)Density
TECHNICAL Asset'Durability Life)Cycle)Cost)per)lane)mile
Percent'of'Crash'Reduction Vehicular)Crashes)per)100)VMT
Reduction'in'Delay Vehicular)Crashes)per)100)VMT
Cost)per)laneAmile)of)highway)constructed,)by)
Cost'Per'Lane'Mile
functional)class)&)material)type
User'Costs
Net'Profit'to'Owner/Operator Life)Cycle)Costs)Vs)Life)Cycle)Profits
Net'Present'Value
ECONOMIC Land'Use'Ratio Changes)in)Land)Use)Ratio
Changes'in'Land'Use'Ratio
Employment'Created Increase)in)Employment)per)year)
Increase'in'Per'Capita'Income'
of'Local'Residents Percentage)increase)in)Per)Capita)Income
Land'Use'Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL Air'Quality'Impact Tons)of)Pollutants)emitted)per)year
Noise'Level'Impact
4 Team

8. Demand
Estimation
A Systems Approach
Team

9. Demand
Estimation
A Systems Approach
Team

10. Demand
Estimation
A Systems Approach
Team

11. Demand
Estimation
A Systems Approach
Team

12. Demand Estimation
6 Team

13. Demand Estimation
I-80 I-80
IL-1
US-231
US-30
SR-2
IL-21
SR-10
IL-24
IL-17
IL-8
IL-114
6 Team

14. Demand Estimation
•Traffic Volume Shift
–Distance Based Approach
• The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and
distance
7 Team

15. Demand Estimation
•Traffic Volume Shift
–Distance Based Approach
• The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and
distance
7 Team

16. Demand Estimation
•Traffic Volume Shift
–Distance Based Approach
• The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and
distance
Transfer load of each Road
7 Team

17. Demand Estimation
•Traffic Volume Shift
–Distance Based Approach
• The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and
distance
Transfer load of each Road Transferred Volume on Illiana
7 Team

18. Demand Estimation
•Traffic Volume Shift
–Distance Based Approach
• The transfer of volume is allocated according to road volume and
distance
Transfer load of each Road Transferred Volume on Illiana
7 Team

19. Demand Estimation
Estimated Truck Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009
8 Team

20. Demand Estimation
Estimated Truck Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009
2009 2030
3874
2980
4595
2317 2384
3535
1782
2748 2827
1426
2114
1691 2704
2080
1617 1663
1244 995
Expressway Trucklane TollRoad Expressway Trucklane TollRoad
I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I65
8 Team

21. Demand Estimation
Estimated Total Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009
9 Team

22. Demand Estimation
Estimated Total Traffic for Illiana Corridor for year 2009
2009 2030
19732 19285
17966
15396 14867
11802 11534
10745 13857
9208 8892 8288 17783 17405 16268
10636 10410 9730
Expressway Trucklane TollRoad Expressway Trucklane TollRoad
I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I65
9 Team

23. OD & Demand
GrowthAnalysis
10 Team

24. OD
I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65
OD1
OD2
OD3
OD4
OD5
OD6
11 Team

25. OD
I-57 IL-394 US-41 I-65
OD1
OD2
OD3
OD4
OD5
Aj
Tij = Pi Where,
∑
n Pi is the trip productions from
OD6
j =1
Aj road i,
Aj is the trip attractions to road
j,
11 Kij = Fij =1. Team

26. OD
•For the alternative with a dedicated truck lane
–Increase in truck volume will be around 30%.
•For the alternative of toll road
–7% of automobile trips and 20% of truck trips will
change their travel routes based on pricing scheme
12 Team

27. Demand growth analysis
•Population Growth
•Economic growth
•Land use influence
•Increasing public recognition of Illiana
•We assumed an annual growth of 2%
β 2 = (1.02) − 1 = 48.6%
20
•Integrating the population growth and other growth,
we estimate the growth factor of traffic demand in
2030 will be
λ = [(1.074) − 1] + [(1.02) − 1] = 63.9%
2 20
13 Team

28. OD Analysis: For Expressway
14 Team

29. OD Analysis: For Expressway
OD1" OD1"
12"
in#Thousands# 2009 in#Thousands#
12" 2030
10" 10"
8" 8"
OD6" 6" OD2" OD6" 6" OD2"
4" 4"
2" 2"
0" 0"
OD5" OD3" OD5" OD3"
OD4" OD4"
AADT OD1 OD2 OD3 OD4 OD5 OD6
2009 Total traffic 1198 1650 7131 524 1508 2087
Truck traffic 273 332 939 105 313 388
2030 Total traffic 2003 2759 11923 876 2521 3489
Truck traffic 456 555 1570 176 523 649
14 Team

30. Construction Cost
Mainline Roadway
Interchanges
Design Consultant
Right of way
Bridges
15 Team

31. Construction Cost: Roadway (6
•Unit Agency Costs – Flexible Pavements for Interstate
Highway (Average Cost in Dollars/Lane-mile)
Ref: Muhammad Irfan et al, 2010
16 Team

32. Construction Cost: Roadway (6
•Unit Agency Costs – Flexible Pavements for Interstate
Highway (Average Cost in Dollars/Lane-mile)
Ref: Muhammad Irfan et al, 2010
Road type Six-Lane
359
Cons. Cost (M, $)
Minimum ($, M) $81
261
Maximum ($, M) $359
81
Mean ($, M) $261
Minimum Maximum Mean
16 Team

33. Construction Cost:
•Highway construction cost for diamond interchange
Ref: Highway Construction Cost Comparison for Diamond
Interchange, WSDOT, Nationwide Survey, April 2002
17 Team

34. Construction Cost:
•Highway construction cost for diamond interchange
Illinois: $6,066,000
Ref: Highway Construction Cost Comparison for Diamond
Interchange, WSDOT, Nationwide Survey, April 2002
Interchanges Type Unit Cost (2009, $) Total Cost (2009, $)
4 Diamond $6,066,000 $30,870,584
17 Team

35. Construction Cost: Design
•Highway construction cost for diamond interchange
Ref: Fee Guide Line for Consulting Engineering
Service (January 2004 – 1st edition, produced by The
Association of Consulting Engineers NZ
Design
Consulting
Fee=7.5% of
total Construction
cost
18 Team

36. Construction Cost: Right of
•The typical right of way widths for cross section
–6-Lane Rural – 400 feet
•The additional area for per interchange is estimated
as 80 acres
•Per acre land cost is $40,000 (for additional land)
•The cost for 6 lane road is $48,174,546
19 Team

37. Construction Cost
20 Team

38. Construction Cost
$72
Bridges
Interchanges
$31 Mainline Roadway
$479 Right-of-Way
Design Consultant
$54
Construction Cost (in M, $)
$31
$359
Construction Total Cost (in M, $)
$36
Four-Lane 373.0
$31
$239 Six-Lane 527.8
Eight-Lane 682.6
$54
$48
$42
$36 $47
$25
Four-Lane Six-Lane Eight-Lane
20 Team

39. MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION COSTS
21 Team

40. Maintenance & Operation Cost
•Maintenance
–Major
–Minor
•Operations
•Major Maintenance
–Toll Collection
–HMA Overlay
–Toll Facilities Functional
Maintenance
–HMA Overlay
–Traffic Management & Structural
•Minor Maintenance
–Thin HMA Overlay
–Micro Surfacing
22 Team

41. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6
Lane)
23 Team

42. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6
Lane)
Pavement Maint. (in Million $) Bridge Maint. (in Million $)
$46
$44 44
$36
$23 23
$6 6
HMA Micro S HMA (F) HMA (S) Resurfacing Rehab. Deck Repl. Sup. Repl.
23 Team

43. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6
Lane)
24 Team

44. Maintenance & Operation Cost (6
Lane)
Annual Toll facility related costs
(in 1000’ $)
$100 (in M, $)
$2.2
$50
$40
Facilities Maintenance Money Transport Equipment Maintenance Tolling Operations
24 Team

45. Travel Time Saving
25 Team

46. Travel Time Saving
–Due to congestion relief
•Using other existing roads
•Reduction in traffic volume
•Travel time reduction, and monetary savings
•COMSIS Method, and Value of Travel time
–Due to route change
•Traffic shift to Illiana Freeway
•Selection of shorter routes
•Avoiding congested routes
•Travel time savings for 6 OD pairs
26 Team

47. Travel Time Saving
Due to congestion relief
27 Team

48. Travel Time Saving
Due to congestion relief
Link
Characteristics
Road Segment
Length
27 Team

49. Travel Time Saving
Due to congestion relief
Link Flow
Characteristics Characteristics
27 Team

50. Travel Time Saving
Due to congestion relief
Link Flow Value of
Characteristics Characteristics Travel Time
Small $17.54
Autos per hour
Truck $30.61
Trailer per hour
27 Team

51. Travel Time Saving
Due to congestion relief
Link Flow Value of
Characteristics Characteristics Travel Time
Due to route change
F n
BPR Function t0 [1 + α ( ) ]
t=
C
27 Team

52. Travel Time Saving
Monetary Saving of travel time for Illiana Corridor for year
Expressway Truck lane Toll road
Total Monetary Saving in 2030 $66,555,468 $64,665,485 $63,448,197
70
62 60 58
Travel Time Savings( in M, $)
53
35
18
5 5 6
0
Expressway Trucklane Toll road
Route change Congestion relief
28 Team

53. Safety Impacts
Same Dir. Side Swipe
Off Road Crashes Rear End Crashes
Head On Crashes
Opposite Direction Side Swipe
29 Team

54. Safety Impacts
•Transportation projects generally have a direct or
indirect safety component that reduces the rate or
severity of crashes
–Approach A: using crash rate or equation
30 Team

55. Safety Impacts
•Transportation projects generally have a direct or
indirect safety component that reduces the rate or
severity of crashes
–Approach A: using crash rate or equation
Motor vehicle traffic fatality and injury rates by functional class Unit crash cost on the basis of the KABCO
injury scale (NSC 2001)
Ref: Sinha and Labi, 2007
FHWA, 1998
NCS website
30 Team

56. Safety Impacts
Total Savings (2009)
31 Team

57. Safety Impacts
User Safety savings (in Million $)
$21
$20
$19
Expresslane Truck lane Toll Road
Total Savings (2009)
31 Team

58. Vehicle Operating
32 Team

59. Vehicle Operating Costs
•Estimating the unit rates with and without
intervention
•Estimating the amounts of travel (VMT) with and
without intervention
•Calculating the user VOC benefits of intervention
•Unit VOC using Hepburn Model
•Saving in VOC due to congestion relief and route
change
33 Team

60. Vehicle Operating Costs
2030 Congestion relief Route change
11.0 10.9
10.6
VOC Benefits (in M, $)
$0.8 $0.8 $0.7
Expressway Truck lane Toll road
Expressway Truck lane Toll road
Congestion relief $0.8 $0.8 $0.7
Route change $11 $10.9 $10.6
Total VOC saving $11.8 $11.7 $11.3
34 Team

61. Economic Efficiency
35 Team

62. Economic Efficiency
•NPV Method
–Base year 2009, final year 2030
•Benefits:
Benefitn
–Travel time savings PWn = n − 2009
(1 + i )
–Safety savings
–VOC savings
–Toll revenue (for toll road only)
•Costs:
–Construction, Maintenance, Toll
Collection etc.
–Different periods/cycles (annual, 10 yrs…) Costn
PWn = n − 2009
(1 + i )
36 Team

63. Economic Efficiency
37 Team

64. Economic Efficiency
$447
$358
NPV (in M, $)
$243
Expressway Trucklane Toll road
NPV (in M, $)
37 Team

65. Economic
38 Team

66. Economic Development
•Economic Activity Generation: Every $1 billion
invested in transportation infrastructure generates
more than $2 billion in economic activity. • (USDOT, 2005)
39 Team

67. Economic Development
•Per every $1 billion in construction spending, 42,100
new jobs are created. • (FHWA, 2005)
40 Team

68. Energy Impacts
41 Team

69. Energy Impact Assessment
(Caltrans, 1983.)
42 Team

70. Energy Impact Assessment
Direct Indirect
19625
16625 16527
3544
Billion BTU
11889 227 260 227
Do Nothing Expressway Truck lane Toll Road
43 Team

71. Social & Cultural
44 Team

72. Social & Cultural Impacts
The impacts depend on the manner of social change
interpretation, the level of anticipation, and the
resilience of the affected population.
Ref: Sinha and Labi, 2007
45 Team

73. Social & Cultural Impacts
The impacts depend on the manner of social change
interpretation, the level of anticipation, and the
resilience of the affected population.
Targeted Facilities: Targeted Groups:
1.Schools 1.All persons in the impact area
2.Religious institutions 2.Elderly, handicapped, non-
3.Playground, parks and drivers, and transit-dependent
recreational areas persons
4.Hospitals, clinics and other 3.Minority groups
medical facilities 4.Low-income or poverty-stricken
5.Residential and social facilities for individuals
the elderly people. 5.Groups vulnerable to conflict,
6.Social service agencies, etc. violence, or economic shocks,
etc.
Ref: Sinha and Labi, 2007
45 Team

74. Environmental Justice
Consideration
•Proposed alignment corridors
do not disproportionately
displace poverty-stricken
households
•The paths of the three
alternatives go through
primarily rural land with
poverty-stricken households
Ref: Joseph et al, 2009
Overall, there are few significant environmental
justice concerns within this primarily rural
46 Team

75. Strategies to Enhance Social
Well-being
•Engage communities and stakeholders
•A transit-oriented development
•Develop multi-modal transportation
alternatives
•Promote active, healthy living: walking2009
Ref: Joseph et al,
and
47 Team

76. Visual Impacts
48 Team

77. Visual Impacts
•Visual Quality Evaluation Method (FHWA):
–Vividness, Intactness and Unity
Forest&Area&
!!
&
Illiana&Corridor
49 Team

78. Visual Impacts
•Larger medians with vegetation will reduce intactness
and increase unity between infrastructure and
landscape
50 Team

79. Land Use Impacts
51 Team

80. Land Use Impacts
Activity TRANSPORTATION!
patterns and
Patterns and
number of
accessibility
transportation
in an area
systems
LAND USE!
52 Team

81. Land Use Impacts
•Used gravity model
TRANSPORTATION!
Activity
patterns and
–Employment Growth
Patterns and
number of
transportation
accessibility
in an area
–Accessibility
systems computation
LAND USE! –Population Growth
52 Team

82. Land Use Impacts
•Used gravity model
TRANSPORTATION!
Activity
patterns and
–Employment Growth
Patterns and
number of
transportation
accessibility
in an area
–Accessibility
systems computation
LAND USE! –Population Growth
Land use Change(Vs. no build) Comparison (in Acre)
County Expressway Truck lane Toll road
Will 157699.72 157699.80 157700.25
Kankakee 500.48 500.40 499.95
Lake 22996.10 23015.00 22798.16
52 Team

83. Noise Impact
Assessment
53 Team

84. Noise Impact Assessment
•Sources (Vehicles, Roads, Driver, Construction & other
activities)
•Impacts on (Humans, Buildings, Wildlife)
•Mitigation (Vehicles, Surface design, Road Geometry
etc)
Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook,
World Bank
54 Team

85. Noise Impact Assessment
55 Team

86. Noise Impact Assessment
Acceptable
55 Team

87. Noise Impact Assessment
Acceptable
•Threshold Sound Level: 66dBA
55 Team

88. Noise Impact Assessment
Receivers!
Barrier!
Acceptable
•Threshold Sound Level: 66dBA
55 Team

89. Noise Impact Assessment
80.0$ 40$8$ 80$8$ 120$8$
75.0$
Noise&Level&(dBA)&
70.0$
65.0$
60.0$
55.0$
Express$ Truck$ Toll$ Express$ Truck$ Toll$
2009$ 2030$
56 Team

90. Air Quality
Assessment
57 Team

91. Air Quality Assessment
Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank
58 Team

92. Air Quality Assessment
Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank
Emission (Vehicle Type, Road Geometry, Engine, etc)
58 Team

93. Air Quality Assessment
2009 Pollutants(million grams) 2030 Pollutants (million grams)
1,365
2,283
1,363 2,280
2,278
1,360
2,275
1,358
2,273
1,355 2,270
Express Truck lane Toll Road Express Truck lane Toll Road
lane lane
59 Team

94. Air Quality Assessment
•Causes:
–Traffic Volume (VMT)
–Traffic composition
–Traffic Speed
–others (Road surface, dispersion of pollutants)
•Remedies:
–Capacity of highway
–Alignment of roads
–Vegetation
–Reducing traffic intervention
60 Team

95. Air Quality Assessment
•Causes:
–Traffic Volume (VMT)
–Traffic composition
–Traffic Speed
–others (Road surface, dispersion of pollutants)
•Remedies:
–Capacity of highway
–Alignment of roads
–Vegetation
Ref: Roads and Environment: A handbook, World Bank
–Reducing traffic intervention
60 Team

96. Wetland Impact
Assessment
61 Team

97. Wetland Impact Assessment
•Ecological
–Keep surface and groundwater clean
–Act as floodwater reservoirs
–Habitat for many species of animals
–Ground-Water recharging
•Social
–Maintain water Quality
–Controls Floods
•Economic
–Serve as Recreational Areas Source
62 Team

98. Wetland Impact Assessment
•Ecological
–Keep surface and groundwater clean
–Act as floodwater reservoirs
–Habitat for many species of animals
–Ground-Water recharging
•Social
Clean Water Act
–Maintain water Quality
Coastal Zone Management Act
–Controls Floods National Environmental Policy Act
•Economic
–Serve as Recreational Areas Source
62 Team

99. Wetland Impact Assessment
•Ecological
–Keep surface and groundwater clean
–Act as floodwater reservoirs
–Habitat for many species of animals
–Ground-Water recharging
•Social
Clean Water Act
–Maintain water Quality
Coastal Zone Management Act
–Controls Floods National Environmental Policy Act
•Economic
–Serve as Recreational Areas Source
62 Team

100. Wetland Impact Assessment
Wetland Ioss (Acre)
Min Max
1239
908
Minimum Wetlands (Acre)
Illinois 98.86
Indiana 604.28
376
309
316 70 317 33
Freshwater Emergent Fresh Water Pond
63 Team

101. Wetland Impact Assessment
Min Cost (in M, $) Max Cost (in M, $)
Restoration (2009 $) Emergent Forested Fresh Water Lake
Shrub Pond
Unit Cost (1000’s , $) 24.3 57.2 33.9 24.3
Min Cost (in M, $) 11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6
Source: Wetland Replacement Practices and Procedures for Indiana Highway Project. JTRP 2002
64 Team

102. Wetland Impact Assessment
Min Cost (in M, $) Max Cost (in M, $)
Restoration (2009 $) Emergent Forested Fresh Water Lake
Shrub Pond
Unit Cost (1000’s , $) 24.3 57.2 33.9 24.3
Min Cost (in M, $) 11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6
Source: Wetland Replacement Practices and Procedures for Indiana Highway Project. JTRP 2002
43.6 Cost for restoration of wetland (in M,$)
16.4
13.2
9.5
11.1 3.0 8.0 0.6
Emergent Forested Shrub Fresh Water Pond Lake
64 Team

103. Water Resource
Impact
65 Team

104. Water Resource Impact
•Two Major Aspect:
–Impact on Water Quality:
•Pollutant load Increment due to daily traffic
•Impact on Water Quantity:
–Increase in Surface Runoff Quantities
•Other Impacts on Water Quantity:
–Impacts on Water Flow Patterns
–Impacts on Groundwater Quantity
66 Team

105. Water Resource Impact
•Impact on Water Quality:
–Major precipitation data in Illinois and Indiana are
obtained from NOAA Satellite and Information
Service database
–In Illinois, precipitation data of 2 counties (Will,
Kankakee) and the statewide precipitation are
considered
–In Indiana, precipitation data of 3 counties (Newton,
Benton and Jesper) and statewide precipitation are
considered
–Data shows from 07/31/2000 to 07/31/2011, a
67 Team

106. Water Resource Impact
•Impact on Water Quality:
–Major precipitation data in Illinois and Indiana are
obtained from NOAA Satellite and Information
Service database
–In Illinois, precipitation data of 2 counties (Will,
Kankakee) and the statewide precipitation are
considered
–In Indiana, precipitation data of 3 counties (Newton,
Benton and Jesper) and statewide precipitation are
considered
–Data shows from 07/31/2000 to 07/31/2011, a
P = P! + K! H! T! and!K! = 0.007×(ADT)!.!" ! ∆P = K ! H ! T!
Where delta P is increment in Ref: Gupta et al., 1981
67 Team

107. Water Resource Impact
68 Team

108. Water Resource Impact
2030
838 821
771
Pollutant load increment(in lb)
821 796
747
933 916 862
Expressway Truck lane Toll road
I-57 to IL-394 IL-394 to US-41 US-41 to I65
68 Team

109. Water Resource Impact
!
•Peak Discharge rate:! = !"#!
Description Before Project After Project
Cultivated Land Concrete Pavement Asphaltic Pavement
Area, A (acres) 1345.46 109.09 1454.55
Runoff coefficient, c 0.245 0.875 0.875
Rainfall intensity, i (in/hr) 3.25 3.25 4.21
Runoff from each area (ft3/s) 1071.32 310.22 5358.2
Total Runoff (ft3/s) 1381.54 5358.2
69 Team

110. Travel Time Savings
Safety Savings
Analytical Hierarchical Vehicle Operating Cost
Process (AHP) Savings
Economic Efficiency
Air Quality Impacts
Noise Impacts
Wetland/Water Resources
Impacts
Visual/Social and Cultural
Impacts
Energy Use Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Economic Development
Multiple Criteria
Evaluation
70 Team

111. Multiple Criteria Evaluation
•Rating were given by individual group members
•Led to formulate 11x11 matrix
•Used AHP formulation to compute the weights
71 Team

112. Multiple Criteria Evaluation
Criteria Weight Do-Nothing Expressway Truck lane Toll Road
Travel Time Saving 0.186 4 1 2 3
Safety Saving 0.202 4 1 2 3
VOC Saving 0.079 4 3 2 1
Economic Efficiency 0.241 4 2 3 1
Air Quality Impacts 0.044 1 2 3 4
Noise Impacts 0.030 1 4 3 2
Water Resources Impacts 0.062 1 4 3 2
Visual/Social Impacts 0.019 1 2 4 3
Energy Use Impacts 0.031 1 2 4 3
Land Use Impacts 0.029 4 3 2 1
Economic Development 0.076 4 3 1 2
72 Team

113. Multiple Criteria Evaluation
73 Team

114. Conclusio
74 Team

115. Conclusio
THANK YOU
74 Team